I agree with Sven, we can check for the existence of classes/interfaces/methods that are new in each release to auto-detect the JDBC version if the settings did not provide a value.
Larry On 6/11/05, Sven Boden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Very personal preference.... auto-detection, but tag can override if > required. > > Regards, > Sven > > > On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 00:05:41 -0600, you wrote: > > >Hey guys, > > > >I'm reposting this because i'm not sure it got out with all the email > >hiccups over the last day. I'd really like to get some feedback on > >this. It will help us to move forward with adding jdbc 3 support... > > > >We need to start supporting some jdbc 3 functionality. I was thinking > >we can use the <settings> tag and add a compatibility attribute to it. > >The default would be 2 but could be configured to support 3. Then when > >we add support for savepoints, generated keys, etc... we can throw a > >sensible exception when someone tries to use jdbc 3 functionality in a > >jdbc 2 compatibility mode. > > > >My question is, do we want the support to be explicit with the setting > >tag? or do we want to use an autodetection means? > > > ><settings ... [compatibility="3"]/> > > > >thoughts? > > > >Brandon > >
